Unlike you, I accept the entire definition and know it applies across the board.

I accept the definition, but unlike you I don't ride on it, as if that it is all religion is. I take the dictionary term in its entirety, that is, I consider the other meanings in which it is also defined. You ignored them. Nor did you clarify what you meant. For example, Larry demonstrated the epistemological foundations of belief are central to religion. Do you share his view?

I am not in denial about the faith of the admittedly religious and faithful people (as much of the definitions points out), but I am also fully aware of the portions of the definition that are applicable to those (like you for instance) who are in denial of their religion and great faith.

Like I have said many times, I accept my beliefs are faith now. After my discussion with Larry, I've changed my position, because I now understand what is meant by faith in that context. You keep making false accusations, which is most unfortunate as I am now forced to seek moderation action to make you accountable for your statements.

No, just as now, you are attempting to squirm out of the portion of the definition that is directly pertinent to your religious situation. And you repeated attempts at denial just further strengthen my assertion.

This is school yard rubbish. I've told you all I was doing was making an observation. You're the one in denial buddy, if you're reading more into it.

The thing I don't understand is why denial even matters. You seemed to lord it over evolutionist as if the moral high ground matters to an intellectual discussion.

That is incorrect and pretentious on your part Lounge. ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a big difference between pointing out a flaw as part of a debate concerning worldviews, and Ã¢â‚¬Å“LordingÃ¢â‚¬Â something over someone. And your little morality play begs the question. Why does an atheist even attempt to argue morality? If we are all just animals, if we are all just bags of biological mass, if we are but Ã¢â‚¬Å“matter in motionÃ¢â‚¬Â. What does morality even matter? AND, why do you want to play the Ã¢â‚¬Å“MoralÃ¢â‚¬Â card, then turn around and pretend Ã¢â‚¬Å“DenialÃ¢â‚¬Â doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter?AndÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Yes, denial matters in every walk of life. I you cannot see that, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not my fault.

The denial is irrelevant to the specific issues at hand, and whenever you fall on this default position, it always seems like you're avoiding the issue.

Denial is NEVER Ã¢â‚¬Å“irrelevantÃ¢â‚¬Â Lounge, and to even say so show a logical and philosophical issue. You seem to be the one avoiding issues here.

Scientists make assumptions or take other work on good faith in order to construct their hypothesis. They accept assumptions as part of the process. Renaming it as "faith" just confuses the matter.

Yes, we make assumptions and take things on faith ALL THE TIME. But when we construct our hypotheses, we are attempting to find facts and truth, or disprove and move on. But, if we base our philosophies in life on unproven theories and hypotheses, that is a religious faith, not a faith in a peers work. There is a difference, you do understand that donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you?

In the broad scheme of evolutionism, what you say makes sense, as philosophical evolutionism does require faith, but in relation to specific issues of science, it comes across as you backing out of the argument to attack a religion independent to the issue.

It would be like arguing Flood Theory or the methods of creation science, then the atheist turning around and saying Christianity takes a lot of faith to believe in fantasy heroes. Whether it is true or not, its completely irrelevant to the matter of discussion.

You said scheme (just kidding, I know what you meant). No, Lounge, your philosophical attitudes play into your scientific endeavors. And, if you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t come to grips with this fact, then you have more denial issues. Case in point, when a scientist excluded ANYTHING from a hypothesis before hand, they are allowing their philosophical attitude control their science. And that, simply put, is pseudo science. And if a Christian scientist excluded any possibility from his science, heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just as bad as the evolutheist that does the same.

ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a big difference between pointing out a flaw as part of a debate concerning worldviews, and Ã¢â‚¬Å“LordingÃ¢â‚¬Â something over someone.

I agree there is a big difference. So I wonder why you are debating matters of worldview, in a debate concerning the practices of science.

If you go back to post #102, I asked... "even if "evolutionists" did what you say, how does their bad practices justify creationisms bad practices?"

You then made broad and irrelevant statements about evolution being a religion, which FrankH objected too. In making your broad and irrelevant statement you jumped ship on my question and changed the debate to one concerning worldviews, and now acting as if you've done nothing wrong.

So before you accuse anyone of pretensions, you need to take a good hard look at yourself.

Why does an atheist even attempt to argue morality?

I'm not. I noticed you were trying trump the debate by taking the moral high ground, which is a political tactic. It screams of intellectual dishonesty.

Denial is NEVER Ã¢â‚¬Å“irrelevantÃ¢â‚¬Â Lounge, and to even say so show a logical and philosophical issue. You seem to be the one avoiding issues here.

That's rich coming from someone, who just twisted my comment about denial. The point I was making was denial of evolution/creationism/christianity ..whatever... as a religion has nothing to do with the bad practices of evolution being used to justify the bad practices of creationism. As an advocate of creationism, I do not want to see creationism being done as poorly as evolutionism. I'm not avoiding the issue. Instead you are unable to follow the discussion.

Yes, we make assumptions and take things on faith ALL THE TIME. But when we construct our hypotheses, we are attempting to find facts and truth, or disprove and move on. But, if we base our philosophies in life on unproven theories and hypotheses, that is a religious faith, not a faith in a peers work. There is a difference, you do understand that donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you?

Natural selection has been proven in micro-evolution, so is fact. While I think it is a mistake for evolutionists to extend natural selection to macro-evolution, I can see why they would make that mistake. Where as, you treat their ideas like they are completely irrational, when they actually rational to some degree, although ill-informed.

You said scheme (just kidding, I know what you meant). No, Lounge, your philosophical attitudes play into your scientific endeavors. And, if you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t come to grips with this fact, then you have more denial issues.

I'm getting tired of your false accusations. It's becoming insulting. At least demonstrate the denial, i.e. show that I cannot come to grips with the facts. You fling denial accusations around like a school boy who just got a new toy.

A genuine case of denial would be Ted Haggard's same-s@x inclinations. He used to be in denial of his inclination as being part of who he is. Now he accepts them as part of who he is, so is no longer in denial. Your accusations of denial do not qualify in this way, because you don't explain what it is the is I am supposedly in denied of in relation to the issue. Instead you create a whole new discussion to make the claim, so you can take the high ground, with the pretension of you being honest. When in fact you just use the accusation as a default tactic to commit to your own denials. For example, you deny the issue of denial has no relevance to whether evolutionism bad practices justify creationisms bad practices.

I agree there is a big difference. So I wonder why you are debating matters of worldview, in a debate concerning the practices of science.

Because world views obviously play a big roll in the scientific endeavors and practices of some. In fact, the evolutheists at this forum attempt to make hay claiming Christian scientists say "God did it" when ever they don't have an answer. I'm just taking it a step further as saying evolutheists say "evolution did it" or "nature did it" (and don't try to say they don't... their literature is littered with these statements).

Therefore it is a very valid point. But thank you for raising it, so I could explain it a little better.

If you go back to post #102, I asked... "even if "evolutionists" did what you say, how does their bad practices justify creationisms bad practices?"

You then made broad and irrelevant statements about evolution being a religion, which FrankH objected too. In making your broad and irrelevant statement you jumped ship on my question and changed the debate to one concerning worldviews, and now acting as if you've done nothing wrong.

None of my statements were Ã¢â‚¬Å“irrelevantÃ¢â‚¬Â, nor were they boradÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ They were cogent, relevant and concise, you just didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢tÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ like the conclusion. Also I pointed out the religion of both, yes both are theistic, whether you like it or not. And it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter if Frank liked the statements or not, because theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re true and neither of you have done a thing to refute or disprove it.

Because world views obviously play a big roll in the scientific endeavors and practices of some.

You're still avoiding the question: how does the bad practices of evolutionisms justify creationisms bad practices?"

Many creationist make arguments as bad as evolutionists. Some here even admit they are making the same type of argument. Like Ikester saying, "evolution did it... is pot calling the kettle black"

In fact, the evolutheists at this forum attempt to make hay claiming Christian scientists say "God did it" when ever they don't have an answer. I'm just taking it a step further as saying evolutheists say "evolution did it" or "nature did it" (and don't try to say they don't... their literature is littered with these statements).

I do not deny evolutheist do that. My point is, how does comparing yourself to an evolutheist and using their same tactics, help creatheism?

IMO it doesn't, it makes creatheism look as stupid as evolution. I prefer creationism over creatheism.

Natural selection has been proven in micro-evolution, so is fact. While I think it is a mistake for evolutionists to extend natural selection to macro-evolution, I can see why they would make that mistake. Where as, you treat their ideas like they are completely irrational, when they actually rational to some degree, although ill-informed.I'm getting tired of your false accusations. It's becoming insulting. At least demonstrate the denial, i.e. show that I cannot come to grips with the facts. You fling denial accusations around like a school boy who just got a new toy.

Adaption has been proven in adaptation, nothing more, and nothing less. If you wish to call it micro-evolution, thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s up to you. And I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t treat them as irrational; I treat them as another religion (which they are). If you are insulted by the truth, I can do nothing about that, because you have done nothing to refute it. Other than say it isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t true, and imply itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s insulting to you.

And your denial is in pretending the definition isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t applicable to evolutheists (the religion of evolution). IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve demonstrated it quite thoroughly, and you have yet to come back with any refutation.

If you are insulted by the truth, I can do nothing about that, because you have done nothing to refute it. Other than say it isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t true, and imply itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s insulting to you.

Saying something is true doesn't make it true Ron. Like I said, you're flinging accusations around without providing any substance.

And your denial is in pretending the definition isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t applicable to evolutheists (the religion of evolution). IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve demonstrated it quite thoroughly, and you have yet to come back with any refutation.

You dishonesty is appalling.

I stated in post #121:

"I accept the definition..." and I went on to explain why with reference to Larry's statements.

I said in post #120:

"In the broad scheme of evolutionism, what you say makes sense, ... but in relation to specific issues of science, it comes across as you backing out of the argument to attack a religion independent to the issue."

I accept evolutionism is a religion.

The only person in denial here Ron, is you. There is nothing else to say, other than the obvious, which is, you will no doubt deny your denial.